Okay, now that parallel arguments have come up in both cases of
1. arguing over Gun Rights which are WRITTEN in the Constitution
2. arguing over Marriage Rights being "created by judicial ruling" and thus still contested
as not created by law through any legislature

Can we agree on THESE points at least

A. It is unconstitutional for govt to pass laws BANNING either guns or marriage (including same sex marriage)
where this deprives law abiding citizens from their BELIEFS in exercising their RIGHTS to these

B. Aside from BANNING these through govt (which by point A is unconstitutional
unless all affected citizens agree and NONE of their beliefs are violated),INDIVIDUAL people and businesses CAN CHOOSE whether to recognize or engage in provisions of goods and services regarding EITHER guns or marriage (including same sex marriage).

Since Govt cannot be abused either to prohibit or establish religion/beliefs,
then BELIEFS about gun rights and marriage rights CAN BE CLAIMED under the First Amendment.

Thus A is true in both cases, and govt cannot ban the free exercise of BELIEFS by law abiding citizens
(whether regarding gun rights or marriage rights);
and also B is true, that govt cannot regulate or penalize PRIVATE individuals or businesses
for exercising their beliefs about these either.

NOTE: What people don't want with the gun business, is for these to get abused for crime by either people with criminal intent, or mental/criminal illness or disorder, or by negligence.
The arguments remain as to how to write laws to pinpoint and affect just THOSE cases
WITHOUT depriving LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who have no criminal intent, disorders or negligence issues
of their gun rights "because of the crimes of other people."

Can we agree that it is unconstitutional for the State to BAN the right to bear arms from people without due process to prove criminal problem or negligence; but that INDIVIDUALS and BUSINESSES have freedom of choice to exercise their beliefs about buying or selling guns so they can avoid negligence if guns gets abused.

Preventing the State from BANNING guns or depriving law abiding citizens of liberty without due process
is one thing, can we agree this is unconstitutional for the state to go that far.

But it's another thing to FORCE people or businesses to sell guns to someone if they don't believe in that.

This is similar to the arguments made about marriage,
that it's one thing for the State to BAN same sex marriage when some people believe in this practice,
but it's another thing to force INDIVIDUAL people or businesses to engage in designing or serving
cakes or other products that require them to participate in same sex marriage rituals against their beliefs.

NOTE: If you have an issue with gun rights being written specifically in Constitutional laws, while marriage rights are not, I'm saying that by treating these as BELIEFS under free exercise of religion, then neither can be banned by govt in the first place, whether or not these rights exist by law, by nature, or by belief alone.

So this argument based on defending them both as beliefs DOES NOT DEPEND on them being written in laws in order to treat them as something Govt cannot prohibit. If your issue is that one is written and another is not, can you count that I AGREE with that, and then focus on these two points A and B, if we can agree on THOSE?

Thank you, please comment on whether points A and B apply to both cases (even though there are additional arguments and issues not covered by either one, yes I recognize that gun safety and how to address that without violating constitutional rights is a separate concern not addressed here).

Common sense has to enter the gay wedding thing at some point. A photographer might consider a nude wedding, porn, should he be forced to participate by taking pictures? As a landscaper, should I be forced to mow lawns when I specialize in planting trees or building paver walks? If I make an exception and mow the lawn of an elderly long time client, does that mean I have to mow for anyone who asks? On the other hand, what religious issues are created by a gay couple wanting me to build a paver walk? As far as cakes go, up until there are objectionable objects, pictures or words placed on the cake, I think the cake maker has to make it. The objectionable part can be completed by someone who is comfortable with that. If you make the best tasting cake in town, why wouldn't a person want that at their wedding? Take personal responsibility for objectionable parts and make other arrangements.

Okay, now that parallel arguments have come up in both cases of
1. arguing over Gun Rights which are WRITTEN in the Constitution
2. arguing over Marriage Rights being "created by judicial ruling" and thus still contested
as not created by law through any legislature

Can we agree on THESE points at least

A. It is unconstitutional for govt to pass laws BANNING either guns or marriage (including same sex marriage)
where this deprives law abiding citizens from their BELIEFS in exercising their RIGHTS to these

B. Aside from BANNING these through govt (which by point A is unconstitutional
unless all affected citizens agree and NONE of their beliefs are violated),INDIVIDUAL people and businesses CAN CHOOSE whether to recognize or engage in provisions of goods and services regarding EITHER guns or marriage (including same sex marriage).

Since Govt cannot be abused either to prohibit or establish religion/beliefs,
then BELIEFS about gun rights and marriage rights CAN BE CLAIMED under the First Amendment.

Thus A is true in both cases, and govt cannot ban the free exercise of BELIEFS by law abiding citizens
(whether regarding gun rights or marriage rights);
and also B is true, that govt cannot regulate or penalize PRIVATE individuals or businesses
for exercising their beliefs about these either.

NOTE: What people don't want with the gun business, is for these to get abused for crime by either people with criminal intent, or mental/criminal illness or disorder, or by negligence.
The arguments remain as to how to write laws to pinpoint and affect just THOSE cases
WITHOUT depriving LAW ABIDING CITIZENS who have no criminal intent, disorders or negligence issues
of their gun rights "because of the crimes of other people."

Can we agree that it is unconstitutional for the State to BAN the right to bear arms from people without due process to prove criminal problem or negligence; but that INDIVIDUALS and BUSINESSES have freedom of choice to exercise their beliefs about buying or selling guns so they can avoid negligence if guns gets abused.

Preventing the State from BANNING guns or depriving law abiding citizens of liberty without due process
is one thing, can we agree this is unconstitutional for the state to go that far.

But it's another thing to FORCE people or businesses to sell guns to someone if they don't believe in that.

This is similar to the arguments made about marriage,
that it's one thing for the State to BAN same sex marriage when some people believe in this practice,
but it's another thing to force INDIVIDUAL people or businesses to engage in designing or serving
cakes or other products that require them to participate in same sex marriage rituals against their beliefs.

NOTE: If you have an issue with gun rights being written specifically in Constitutional laws, while marriage rights are not, I'm saying that by treating these as BELIEFS under free exercise of religion, then neither can be banned by govt in the first place, whether or not these rights exist by law, by nature, or by belief alone.

So this argument based on defending them both as beliefs DOES NOT DEPEND on them being written in laws in order to treat them as something Govt cannot prohibit. If your issue is that one is written and another is not, can you count that I AGREE with that, and then focus on these two points A and B, if we can agree on THOSE?

Thank you, please comment on whether points A and B apply to both cases (even though there are additional arguments and issues not covered by either one, yes I recognize that gun safety and how to address that without violating constitutional rights is a separate concern not addressed here).

The thread premise fails as it attempts to address as one ‘issue’ three different Constitutional principles all having nothing to do with the other.

The banning of all handguns is un-Constitutional consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.

The right to marry is recognized by the 14th Amendment, prohibiting the states from denying classes of persons access to state marriage law because of race or sexual orientation.

Public accommodations laws are necessary, proper, and Constitutional as authorized by the Commerce Clause, in no manner ‘violating’ religious liberty.

Moreover, the right to marry was not created by ‘judicial ruling'; as with other rights, the right to marry has always existed, a right protected by the 14th Amendment’s Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses.

The notion that the right to marry was created by ‘judicial ruling’ is as ridiculous as saying the right of the individual to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense was created by ‘judicial ruling’ simply because the words ‘individual’ and ‘self-defense’ are not in the text of the Second Amendment.

The right to possess a firearm and the right to marry are both written specifically in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court.

And the authority of states and local jurisdictions to regulate public accommodations is likewise written specifically in the Constitution as determined by the Supreme Court.

We need to agree that the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.

Marriage is religion based and the state wants separation, therefore, they should support same sex unions with civil unions.

Click to expand...

Incorrect.

Marriage is contract law written by the states and administered by state courts – separate and apart from marriage as religious dogma.

That’s why Obergefell applies solely to the states and local jurisdictions; private religious entities remain at liberty to refuse to accommodate same-sex couples with regard to religious marriage rituals.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!